Another Landscape for critique

I love John's first (neutral) version - nice and fresh.

I prefer the tones in Johns first one (the 2nd has a magenta hint that doesn't look like it could come from the natural lighting), and I can see the extra sharpness in David's version. It might be helpful David to mention what process you used for that and if it was selectively or globally applied?

I agree with the comments from Simon about the lighting though - and this applies to my thoughts on the other shot as well where I felt that to really extract something with high visual interest ('striking') then special techniques or treatment were needed, and that's probably why the photographer has been using HDR. Again, I think the results without any 'special treatment' are going to be fairly sedate under the flat lighting we have.

There's no suggestion that either of these shots would 'represent a challenge to a K-5' - I think that idea has actually crept in by error (as a misunderstanding by Smeggy about what I was meaning by saying you couldn't extract something from a single frame). This was nothing to do with the DR of the camera, but about the lighting conditions. It was my Cannizaro Park shots that were challenging the DR of the camera.

I think the photographer here has instead been trying HDR as a means to introduce more varied and creative lighting.

Well there is a suggestion. Alistair mentions his lack of ND Grad filters necessitating HDR. So maybe its best Alistair tells us why he felt he needed them

No, actually the ND grad filters crept in also as a misunderstanding as well (I think!) That was in response to Smeggy's suggestion on the previous thread .... here's the quote :

(Smeggypants) 'Yup, just try lowering yellow saturation. Also try they yellow hue slider and see if shifting it more green might help. or a combination. I would start again with just one image in LR. try really boosting shadows really reducing highlights, before adjusting blacks and whites to suit. And obviously adding grad filters for sky and foreground as required.'

This is apparently referring to software filters, no? Maybe the OP interpreted that as saying he needed ND grad filters on the camera?

It all gets a bit tricky doesn't it? But yes, lets not speak for Alistair.

Well stop it then

No, when I'm being pulled up on things I want to lay out clearly what the background thinking and assumptions were.

I think its interesting how these little points are transferred over between threads - adds to the richness of it all.

Hi guys. Yes i am using photo matix primarily to help me out with skies. I don't have ND filters and have found taking more than three images and layering them. Great thread and AND THANKS to all who commented.!

Another alternative would be to blend them in photoshop Alistair. Take one image metered for the sky and another for the foreground and then blend the two layers.

Still reckon one image could be processed in lightroom.

I'll not mention ND filters for fear of going off an a whole new tangent

You're very welcome! Both your shots have given us plenty to fight over At least I can stop second-guessing you now

For a scene with this average dynamic range the suggestion of using layers to 'blend' the sky and ground is sound. If you are interested in getting some experience of layers, then I'd suggest giving Photoshop Elements a go - you can do all this sort of thing at a fraction of the cost of full Photoshop.

But I'd also agree with Alan that in LR you should be able to balance out the highs and lows to create the result you want.

Sorry for the late reply Alistair, been out all evening. Contrast was tweaked only very slightly, blacks have not been increased. I spent approx. 1 minute on the image, basically adjusted yellow saturation, added shadow detail to the grass in the foreground, reduced the brightness of the foreground grass by burning the midtones a bit, did a bit of lightening on the grassy hill in the top left, added a little dodging and burning to selected areas, increased global levels, applied global sharpening and reduced global colour saturation.


As detailed above, sharpening was global and not too heavy. Used Photoshop Unsharp Mask, 50%, Threshold 4 and 2.0 Pixels.

Regards
David

This one is by far the best version for me.

Agreed.

It's all good practice of course, but I think simonkit made the most pertinent point, if the light wasn't there, you can only polish a t**d to a point.

OTOH sometimes you get fed up with golden evening light and dramatic clouds piled up, and want to see something a bit more subtle and tranquil. I like the simplicity and clarity of this shot.

Yes, sure, but it depends on the purpose of the photograph. If its just a record of places passed then it needs nothing more than to relight those memories. If its trying to attract others attention though, say for a portfolio or possible sale, then the photographer may feel some pressure to find something to 'spruce it up' (make it more striking )

But what has come through in all the recent discussions (and I agree 100%) is that no HDR or other computer tricks can create something special if the essential ingredients were not there to be photographed in the first place.

Personally, I think Alistair's first posted shot, with the boat, had more of these 'essential ingredients' to create something.